|
Vista SP2 goes beta
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 27 October, 2008
Microsoft has confirmed that a major update for its Vista operating system is coming soon and that Vista Service Pack 2 will enter public beta next week.
Unlike Service Pack 1, which mainly packaged together securities fixes, SP2 will come with new improvements which will add support for newer hardwares and technology standards.
PC World says the highlights of SP2 are as follows:
... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. October 2008 @ 11:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Windose 7 is coming out in a couple years.....why are we even talking about vister still? Forget it exists and try windose 7 when it comes out!
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Member
|
29. October 2008 @ 11:21 |
Link to this message
|
I gave vista 3 months of my life that i will never get back... so don't tell me i approached it closed minded... its a POS operating system, and M$ knows it which is why they're pushing windows 7 out so fast, just like they did with XP after the ME snafu...
|
|
gnorvell
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
29. October 2008 @ 17:16 |
Link to this message
|
I pretty much agree with atomicxl. I have been installing and using Vista since it's RTM days and I find it much more stable than XP ever was in it's first 2 years. I have installed on roughly 10 machines that I use at home and work. Vista is not nearly as sensitive to system changes that would cause a lockup or blue screen. It is not perfect and neither is OS X. I will say this. I am not a huge gamer but rather I use my computers for business at work and for mostly multimedia at home. The biggest issue with Vista has been the slow driver and software releases, especially for 64 bit Vista.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. October 2008 @ 17:34 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by gnorvell:
I pretty much agree with atomicxl. I have been installing and using Vista since it's RTM days and I find it much more stable than XP ever was in it's first 2 years. I have installed on roughly 10 machines that I use at home and work. Vista is not nearly as sensitive to system changes that would cause a lockup or blue screen. It is not perfect and neither is OS X. I will say this. I am not a huge gamer but rather I use my computers for business at work and for mostly multimedia at home. The biggest issue with Vista has been the slow driver and software releases, especially for 64 bit Vista.
Yes but XP is 10X more stale than it was and vista is barely 5X...not to mention locking processes and taskes as so you have to restart if anything locks up the system since theydonot allow you to use task manager...sorry vsiter fails...NEXT!
|
Member
|
30. October 2008 @ 00:25 |
Link to this message
|
Yes, I'll admit Vista is stable, but its a MAJOR resource hog... I.E. 800mb of RAM idle after boot compared to 250mb with XP... Nevermind the fact is a Bloatware OS and that it tends to ghost around 10 GB of your harddrive which you don't get back until you defrag your HD...
Speaking of which I should probably defrag mine... lol
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
30. October 2008 @ 05:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by engage16:
Yes, I'll admit Vista is stable, but its a MAJOR resource hog... I.E. 800mb of RAM idle after boot compared to 250mb with XP... Nevermind the fact is a Bloatware OS and that it tends to ghost around 10 GB of your harddrive which you don't get back until you defrag your HD...
Speaking of which I should probably defrag mine... lol
Well, while I don't care much for Vista, the "memory hog" thing is somewhat misleading. OK, AERO is HORRIDLY inefficient. Otherwise, this is mostly due to the Superfetch functionality (XP just had Prefetch) which allows a lot of commonly used programs to launch faster. Yay! Programs OPEN a lot faster, but then usually run slower! ;-) Also, there are new features to TRY keeping hung apps from totally tying up the system (so you can hopefully actually open Task Manager). One of my other gripes is that Media Center (when recording or playing back) is FAR more prone to stuttering and I cannot figure out why. Anyway, if you're recording anything, DON'T try ANY other drive operations at the same time!
Vista only gets about a 4 out of 10 for me...I've come to know it as VistaMe with most of the computer geeks I know.
|
|
xnonsuchx
Senior Member
|
30. October 2008 @ 05:54 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Like I mentioned before, the only needed...well, not NEEDED, but highly desired by a few feature of Vista is DirectX 10 (which they coulda EASILY done for XP, but needed SOMETHING to try forcing people to upgrade).
They've already hacked dx10 awhile ago to work on xp if I'm not mistaken.
There's supposedly some hacked DX10 for XP that allows some test programs that run DX10 code to run, but AFAIK there's nothing anywhere near allowing DX10 games to run.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. October 2008 @ 06:33 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Like I mentioned before, the only needed...well, not NEEDED, but highly desired by a few feature of Vista is DirectX 10 (which they coulda EASILY done for XP, but needed SOMETHING to try forcing people to upgrade).
They've already hacked dx10 awhile ago to work on xp if I'm not mistaken.
There's supposedly some hacked DX10 for XP that allows some test programs that run DX10 code to run, but AFAIK there's nothing anywhere near allowing DX10 games to run.
No they ported DX10 over because MS is to cheap to, and if a group of people can do it it just shows how bad vister is...
|
|
Xplorer4
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
30. October 2008 @ 07:40 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 21Q:
Tis what happens when you rush on operating system out.
Vista is so much better than XP. Everything is laid out in a way that makes sense. You don't have to hunt for anything (settings and options), its all in a place that totally makes sense, unlike XP and previous OS.
Better I dunno about, equal to though, may be more fair imo. I personally felt things were better organized in XP but like some of the Vista features better.
Quote:
And vista DOES make a computer more sluggish compared to xp or linux, because it pisses away resources for unnecessary things.
XP was the same way when it came out. And yet here you are putting over XP.
Originally posted by engage16:
Yes, I'll admit Vista is stable, but its a MAJOR resource hog... I.E. 800mb of RAM idle after boot compared to 250mb with XP...
And compare that 250 MB in XP to Windows 98, and you will probably come up with a number of like ~100 MB idle. Go back to Windows 95 and you will probably have a number like ~50MB. Now if you compare the major steps in Mac OS upgrades you will likely see similar factors. The bottom line is with evolving technology I don't see the problem. Win I used Win 3.1 it ran fine on a ~50MB hard drive. I dont recall any other specs but now a days ~50MB wouldnt support any major game much less an OS that should be expected to reflect the technology of today.
|
Member
|
30. October 2008 @ 16:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
The control panel and network connections in Vista are an absolute mess... I think we can all agree on that.
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
30. October 2008 @ 21:47 |
Link to this message
|
Here is my say.
My dad upgraded a Pentium 2 450 MHz to Windows XP from 98. It was slow. Very slow. The speed though wasn't really a problem because it was stable and had so many better features. I could plug in a flash drive and not have to install several things. The interface was so much cleaner. It wasn't bloated with too much software. Basically the computers that were out at the time ran XP well.
For Vista, It came out when there were P4s with 512 to 1GB RAM. It ran like crap on those. Why? Vista is a resource hog in RAM but not if you have a decent video card. Many computers you buy with vista score a 2 on the rating because the video card is horrible. Then by default it runs all the aero crap hogging your system RAM because there is no video RAM, thus making your computer slow. Over and above that, it is bloated with UAC and other crap.
I have to say, I do like features of Vista over XP. I run it on a Q6600, 4GB RAM and a 6800GT. It runs fine. It is pretty fast actually. I love the search feature. But I'd rather wait for XP to load for 30 sec to 1 min rather than wait 10 sec and use Vista which won't run that well for long.
As for networking connections, I still haven't found out how to disable a network connection or switch from Wireless to Wired.
|
Senior Member
|
31. October 2008 @ 19:18 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by core2kid:
Here is my say.
For Vista, It came out when there were P4s with 512 to 1GB RAM. It ran like crap on those. Why? Vista is a resource hog in RAM but not if you have a decent video card. Many computers you buy with vista score a 2 on the rating because the video card is horrible. Then by default it runs all the aero crap hogging your system RAM because there is no video RAM, thus making your computer slow. Over and above that, it is bloated with UAC and other crap.
As for networking connections, I still haven't found out how to disable a network connection or switch from Wireless to Wired.
If you run Vista in Classic mode it will run fine with low CPU & RAM power. It takes a lot to run transparent high res graphics whether it is on Linux or a PC, doesn't matter, sorry Linux lovers but that is true!
It is true they have somewhat hidden and made confusing your local connections but you can get there and disable/enable them at will if you wish, I do all the time.
Goto "Network and Sharing Center" and select "Manage network connections" found under Tasks in the upper left of the child window. This will bring you to "Network Connections" and to make things simple in the future copy shortcuts of your adapters you wish to control.
The bigest issues I have with Vista is all of the DRM and hidding of resources they do. Most of which you can get to or get around easily once you're aware of them. Vista64 is the real killer with its FORCED Signed Driver Signature crap, but again you can get around this with a little effort.
MS is very full of themselves and refuse to wake up even with slumping sales they simply will not see the wrongs of their ways, I know I've had many arguements with high up reps from MS.
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
31. October 2008 @ 20:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Runing Vista in classic mode just bring you back to the look of Windows 2000. I am bored of that. Why not have a Classic look, an XP look and Default look. For me, interface matters a lot.
|
Senior Member
|
31. October 2008 @ 20:24 |
Link to this message
|
Well if you want the nicer look and feel you have to pay the fiddler that's the bottom line. You could run Starter or find a version of Vista Fundementals as they require less resources but still have the Vista look less 3D Transparency.
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
31. October 2008 @ 20:38 |
Link to this message
|
Why bother at all.... It's a dog and we all know it. M$ have lost the plot (actually they lost it after 95).. but people are stupid sheep and keep buying crap hoping it's going to be better when history proves conclusively it isn't. Pretty desktop... jeeeeezus.. what do you people use your computers for.. looking at the desktop??.. buy some posters and stick them on the walls.
Quote:
Only time will tell, but... I won't be disappointed or surprised if the service pack turns out to be Lipstick-on-a-Pig 2.0. I've already decided my next home computer is going to be a Mac.
Out of the frying pan.. into the fire.... some people never learn, but thanks for the best laugh of the week anyway.. Remember.. up the road not across the tracks ;)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 31. October 2008 @ 20:40
|
Senior Member
|
31. October 2008 @ 21:27 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
M$ have lost the plot (actually they lost it after 95).. but people are stupid sheep
You seem to be the poster child for your statement too funny... 95 was one of thier worst OS's with exception to ME.
Too funny and not suprised.
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
31. October 2008 @ 22:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
i had no problem with 95 til i hit the speed barrier of 350mhz so had to upgrade to win98.
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
31. October 2008 @ 22:58 |
Link to this message
|
hahaha.. It takes us old timers who actually used it professionally day to day to see what a backwards step 98 was ;)
Quote:
You seem to be the poster child for your statement too funny... 95 was one of thier worst OS's with exception to ME.
Too funny and not suprised.
.. can't even spell.. your M$ spellchecker not working today, or are you just too thick to turn it on.
It's SURPRISED numnuts hehehehehe ;)
Little children with absolutely NO concept of what makes a good os should keep their half baked ideas to themselves or face the ridicule of their elders.. because their youth and ignorance shines like a beacon to those of us with more than 8 years of broken M$ software experience..
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
31. October 2008 @ 23:17 |
Link to this message
|
jan, here is another spelling mistake.
Quote:
You seem to be the poster child for your statement too funny... 95 was one of thier worst OS's with exception to ME.
Too funny and not suprised.
i've got 24 years of computers thru the school of hard knocks.
|
Senior Member
|
1. November 2008 @ 00:03 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
hahaha.. It takes us old timers who actually used it professionally day to day to see what a backwards step 98 was ;)
Quote:
You seem to be the poster child for your statement too funny... 95 was one of thier worst OS's with exception to ME.
Too funny and not suprised.
.. can't even spell.. your M$ spellchecker not working today, or are you just too thick to turn it on.
It's SURPRISED numnuts hehehehehe ;)
Little children with absolutely NO concept of what makes a good os should keep their half baked ideas to themselves or face the ridicule of their elders.. because their youth and ignorance shines like a beacon to those of us with more than 8 years of broken M$ software experience..
Wow a missed spelled word heaven forbid you characters are so predictable and so far off but like I said expected! Var-null if you didn't have something to cry about I don't know what you would do.
95 was a bug nightmare when it came out the jump from 3.11 and hardware changes during the period was too much for MS so what were you smoken' back then must of been really strong you are probably still on it from the sounds of it.
What a character as usual.
|
|
SuperXL
Member
|
1. November 2008 @ 00:07 |
Link to this message
|
what is Vista good for?? i have never used it personally. i have done minor tech support for a few desk/laptops. recover documents, pc recovery, password recovery... that's about it. most of the stuff i did/do in XP is achievable in vista through cmd.exe still. so i haven't had a terribly rough time of working with/around/through vista. run cmd.exe as an admin, and most programs run from cmd will not ask for confirmation.
i can see ONE reason why they ask you to make sure you want to do stuff to the system... "LimeWire users". every person i knew who had LW always had issues. so if the software is constantly asking if you're sure you wanna do something, then you must have done something wrong or are about to do something stupid. i guess people attacked by spyware need something to let them know their registry is being hacked/attacked. i just use spybot S&D for that.
anyway, i will try not to bash M$ too terribly. i've learned to work with/around/through whatever problems i have with their products. i've always bucked against the mainstream until i almost had no choice. with 3.1 all the way up to XP. i used to dual boot 98/XP until stuff just flat out wouldn't work on 98 anymore. 4/4 of my computers have XP and until i just have no choice, i'll wait before installing vista. but i did fold under the XP pressure in a short time. i guess i'm listening to the unhappy masses and not using vista because of whatever problems everyone is having. prob'ly drm restricting you power users and admins. again, until i have no choice, i'll just wait it out.
i wouldn't care about how vista looks. i use my XP system on classic view because i don't need pretty colors, or fancy desktop. i can make my own active desktop if i really needed fancy. but that fancy will be functional crap, and not pretty colors which seems to be all that i've seen on a vista box.
PS2 v7 39001 + 64MB MC
200GB Seagate oem
Retail HDA (HDL Fully Patched)
boot = Launchelf 3.4b
exploit = Codebreaker 8.1 method
|
Senior Member
|
1. November 2008 @ 00:26 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ddp:
jan, here is another spelling mistake.
Quote:
You seem to be the poster child for your statement too funny... 95 was one of thier worst OS's with exception to ME.
Too funny and not suprised.
i've got 24 years of computers thru the school of hard knocks.
And I have 30+ but who really cares any way does that make me better then you? Is this a childish game? Apparently it is. When 95B came around USB and other bugs were pretty much ironed out 98 was the real fix though.
I might have all of the old DOS versions around starting with 1.1 up to 6.22 maybe we should go back to them people would be real thrilled using CLI again. HEHEHE
|
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
1. November 2008 @ 16:30 |
Link to this message
|
I guess it all depends on the application for your PC...
I have a Media Center PC which has Vista Home Premium SP1 loaded and I love it. For that purpose, a pretty GUI is quite understandably welcome and looks the part on my 46" 1080p LCD. I use it to watch and record TV, play Blu-ray/DVD discs, play video and music etc. Since it is the fastest I have (OC'd Q6600@3.0Ghz), I use it for video encoding also. It is also great for gaming with an OC'd GeForce 9600GT. I chose a 9600 as it was the best card I could get with a silent pipe heatsink. As it is a Media Center PC in the Lounge Room, silence is paramount.
I have had this PC running Vista for about 3 months now and I have never had any major problems with it.
The most notable annoyance with Vista is the User Access Control (UAC) and this can be quite easily switched off.
For my other PC, I still use XP and I have found that to be very stable and has served me very well.
Varnull, I would like to address you, hopefully without causing you to feel that it's a personal attack. I often see that you claim to use a PC for professional applications and/or tasks that the average user would not undertake. However, all I see is claims. It is hard to express my thoughts without sounding personal and for this I apologise. One of the major themes of this website is DVD and video encoding/authoring etc. but I am yet to see you participate in a thread where you can offer help from an experienced perspective. The same goes for almost every thread you participate in.
I guess the main point I am trying to say is that all I see is a condescending style of posting from you that quite often attempts to portray a higher level of intelligence than the person/people you address. There is no need for such negativity and resentment towards others in this day and age. We are all faced with hard times, so please stop playing the role of "I am smarter than you but my life is so much harder because I've always had it so bad".
Please don't take me the wrong way but there has been a few times where I have attempted to add a positive, enlightening comment to one of your posts and it gets completely ignored. I would much prefer to participate in threads where everyone gets along, rather than read something with everyone insulting each other. I guess that's why the two threads in my sig are still going so strong. They serve one purpose, which is to help others.
/end of off topic rant.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2. November 2008 @ 03:16
|
Member
|
1. November 2008 @ 20:39 |
Link to this message
|
@Ryu77
/me applauds Ryu77
well said
@fanboyz
I hate these "MS Bash" boyz, I hate Mac bashers too, as well as Linux bashers. Last time I looked...MS bashers were mostly using MS, Mac bashers were using Mac's and Linux bashers were using...well, probably PC's or Mac's but who cares anyway.
This bash crap just gets old really fast...if you don't like it, STFU and use something else but stop your frikkin whining already...gawd you all sound like 2 year olds. Grow up & shut up because all of us who appreciate what these companies have done to further our technology don't need to hear your petty problems, most of which are probably PEBCAK issues anyway.
If you're one of the ones who loved DOS so much and complain that nothing since then has ever worked properly for you, well then Damn It...go back to DOS and leave the rest of us alone...PLEASE!!
Don't y'all just hate it when these things degenerate into a bash-fest instead of posting something constructive? And then we have to put up with all these "I'z smarter than you...I have xx years doing xxx work, so I'm a real Somebody" arse's. Let me put this mildly...WHO THE F%&$ CARES!!! You can type whatever garbage you want too, but that doesn't mean we have to listen to you does it...in fact I think I can speak for the majority here when I say..."Keep it to yourself please and don't try to impress us with your drivel"
Damn I'm so sick of bashers of whatever side. AFAIC you all have no idea what it takes to build something so complex as an OS is today and yet you expect them to be perfect from the box. Ain't gonna happen...never will happen no matter Who builds it, and the sooner you realize this fact, the better off the rest of us will be.
/end rant
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
1. November 2008 @ 21:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
